Multiple-trait subsampling for optimized ancestral trait reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Large datasets along with sampling bias represent a challenge for phylodynamic reconstructions, particularly when the study data are obtained from various heterogeneous sources and/or through convenience sampling. In this study, we evaluate the presence of unbalanced sampled distribution by collection date, location, and risk group of HIV-1 subtype C using a compre-hensive subsampling strategy, and assess their impact on the reconstruction of the viral spatial and risk group dynamics using phylogenetic comparative methods. Our study shows that the most suitable dataset for ancestral trait reconstruction can be obtained through subsampling by collection date, location, and risk group, particularly using multigene datasets. We also demonstrate that sampling bias is inflated when considerable information for a given trait is unavailable or of poor quality, as we observed for the risk group in the analysis of HIV-1 subtype C. In conclusion, we suggest that, even if traits are not well recorded, including them deliberately optimizes the representativeness of the original dataset rather than completely excluding them. Therefore, we advise the inclusion of as many traits as possible with the aid of subsampling approaches in order to optimize the dataset for phylodynamic analysis while reducing the computational burden. This will benefit research communities investigating the evolutionary and spatiotemporal patterns of infectious diseases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".